Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments. The previous rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 24-26, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frigo (US 2013/0091648).
Regarding claim 24, Frigo discloses a cleaning product consisting of:
a. a sponge (Item 112; Paragraph 53) that nests within a receptacle (Item 202 and 203) of a similarly shaped tray such that the sponge and the similarly shaped tray together form a dual action sponge that can wipe, clean, or scour stains;
b. wherein the sponge is made from an absorbent material (Paragraph 53);
c.
d. wherein; the sponge, when moist, nests in a receptacle of the similarly shaped tray by friction fit due to the inner walls of the similarly shaped tray having inner dimensions that are slightly smaller than the total dimensions of the moist sponge (Paragraph 56); and
e. wherein unnesting the sponge from the receptacle of the similarly shaped tray converts the receptacle into an area for holding debris or crumbs (capable of).
Regarding claim 25, Frigo discloses the cleaning product of Claim 24, wherein the sponge is made from a list of materials selected from the group of: cellulose, polyurethane, melamine, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl acetate, low density polyether, acrylates including methacrylates, methacryloyloxybenzophenone (MABP), polystyrene, urea-formaldehyde, polyester,including co-polymers, and any combinations thereof (Paragraph 53).
Regarding claim 26, Frigo discloses the cleaning product of Claim 24, wherein the similarly shaped tray is made from open non-woven fibers or closed non-woven fibers selected from the group of: horse hair, silk, cotton, wool, jute, hemp, polyester, polyethylene terephthalate, coconut shell fibers, agave fibers, henequen fibers, sisal fibers, olefin fibers, polyethylene and polypropylene, carbon fibers, nylon, hexamethylene adipamide, polycaprolactam, walnut shell fibers, acrylic, cellulose acetate, polyvinylidene chloride-vinyl chloride copolymers, glass fibers, rayon, vinyl chloride-acrylonitrile copolymers, metal fibers, or any combinations thereof (Paragraphs 55 and 58).
Regarding claim 31, Frigo discloses the cleaning product of Claim 24, wherein the sponge and the similarly shaped tray can be a shaped as a rectangle, a square, an oval, a circle, an s-shaped, a star, a flower, or other decorative shapes that will reasonably allow nesting of the sponge within the similarly shaped tray (Figure 6).
Regarding claim 32, Frigo discloses the cleaning product of Claim 24, wherein the similarly shaped tray has notches cut into each opposing side wall at each of their top center most edge (Item 235).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frigo (US 2013/0091648) in view of Hayer (US 4,991,362).
Regarding claim 27, Frigo discloses the cleaning product of Claim 26.
Although discusses Item 303 as being a scrubber (Paragraph 58), Frigo fails to explicitly disclose wherein the open non-woven fibers or closed non- woven fibers are bound to abrasive particles selected from the group of: talc, calcium, flint, garnet, calcium carbonate, melamine formaldehyde, calcium silicate, pumice, kaolins aluminum oxide (including ceramic aluminum oxide, heat-treated aluminum oxide, and white- fused aluminum oxide), silicon carbide, topaz, tungsten carbide, alumina zirconia, diamond, ceria, cubic boron nitride, cerium oxide, nepheline syenite, clay, zirconium oxide, titanium oxide, fused alumina-zirconia, boron nitride, tungsten carbide, silicon nitride, garnet, crushed natural materials, crushed nut shells, methacrylate, methylmethacrylate, polyamide, polyester, polyvinyl chloride, polymethacrylic acid, polymethylmethacrylate, polycarbonate,polystyrene, melamine-formaldehyde condensates, and any combinations thereof.
Hayer teaches a cleaning product with a laminate that contains the open non-woven fibers or closed non- woven fibers are bound to abrasive particles selected from the group of: talc, calcium, flint, garnet, calcium carbonate, melamine formaldehyde, calcium silicate, pumice, kaolins aluminum oxide (including ceramic aluminum oxide, heat-treated aluminum oxide, and white- fused aluminum oxide), silicon carbide, topaz, tungsten carbide, alumina zirconia, diamond, ceria, cubic boron nitride, cerium oxide, nepheline syenite, clay, zirconium oxide, titanium oxide, fused alumina-zirconia, boron nitride, tungsten carbide, silicon nitride, garnet, crushed natural materials, crushed nut shells, methacrylate, methylmethacrylate, polyamide, polyester, polyvinyl chloride, polymethacrylic acid, polymethylmethacrylate, polycarbonate,polystyrene, melamine-formaldehyde condensates, and any combinations thereof (Column 5 Lines 19- 30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manner in which the abrasive was held onto the tray by the use of a known binder as taught by Heyer. The use of a binder is known in the art to allow abrasives to strongly adhere to another surface. Further Hayer is discussed to be easily and economically manufactured (Column 2 Lines 10-15)
Regarding claim 28, Frigo in view of Hayer disclose the cleaning product of Claim 27, wherein the abrasive particles are bound to the open non-woven fibers or closed non-woven fibers by resins selected from the group of: acrylic resin, phenolic resin, nitrite resin, ethylene vinyl acetate resin, polyurethane resin, polyurea or urea- formaldehyde resin, isocyanate resin, styrene- butadiene resin, styrene-acrylic resins, vinyl acrylic resin, aminoplast resin, melamine resin, polyisoprene resin, epoxy resin, ethylenically unsaturated resin, bismaleimide binders, vinyl ether resins, beta unsaturated carbonyl groups, acrylate resins, acrylated isocyanurate resins, isocyanurate resins, acrylated urethane resins, acrylated epoxy resins, alkyd resins, hide glue, varnish, and radiation cured crosslinked acrylate binders, nitrite rubbers, epoxies, surfactants, polyethylene glycol, polyvinylpyrrolidones, polylactic acid (PLA), polyvinylpyrrolidone/vinyl acetate copolymers, polyvinyl alcohols, carboxymethyl celluloses, hydroxypropyl cellulose starches, polyethylene oxides, polyacrylamides, polyacrylic acids, cellulose ether polymers, polyethyl oxazolines, esters of polyethylene oxide, and polypropylene oxide copolymers, urethanes of polyethylene oxide, and any combinations thereof (Hayer Column 5 Lines 20-31)
Regarding claim 29, Frigo in view of Hayer disclose the cleaning product of Claim 27, wherein the abrasive particles are bout to the open non-woven fibers or the closed non- woven fibers are bound to mildly abrasive particles with Mohs Hardness from about 1 to 7 and a preferred average particle size of 160 micrometers (Hayer Colum 4 Line 49-Column 5 Line 12).
Regarding claim 30, Frigo in view of Hayer disclose the cleaning product of Claim 27, wherein the open non-woven fibers or the closed-non- woven particles are bound to harder abrasive particles with Mohs Hardness greater than 8 and a preferred average particle size of 45 micrometers or finer (Hayer Colum 4 Line 49-Column 5 Line 12).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frigo (US 2013/0091648) in view of Bogaerts (US 2007/0157405).
Regarding claim 33, Frigo discloses the cleaning product of Claim 24. Frigo fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sponge is associated with an at least one or more additives in the sponge's base structure, wherein such additives include: antimicrobials, biocides, pigments, perfumes, biguanide, alkyl dithiocarbamates, thiazoles, imidazoles, pyrithione water soluble metal ions in an acetate, a chloride, or a sulfate salt form, a potentiator, a chelating polymer, alkali metal salts in combination with quaternary ammonium compounds, alkali metal montmorillonite clays, chelating metal ion polymers, potentiators, metal dialkyl dithiocarbamates, dyes, or any combinations thereof.
Bogaerts teaches a melamine sponge embedded with a perfume (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frigo to include a perfume as taught by Bogaerts. Such a modification would reduce of odors while using the sponge (Paragraph 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 24 under KR20130006429U in view of Frigo (US 2012/0005853) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Frigo 2013/0091648.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights